And while most of the distrust that Americans have for scientists and science in general is completely without warrant, there are times when it is reasonable and often necessary to question the findings of scientists. Especially when the money trail funding certain science leads us right back to the oil and gas industry.

Five years ago, the ExxonMobil-funded American Enterprise Institute began offering large cash incentives to scientists willing to put their conscience aside to undermine studies that were coming out regarding climate change. The dirty energy industry knew that these studies would put their well-being at risk because they were responsible for so much of the global warming emissions, so they had to open their wallets to scientists who were more concerned with their finances than the well being of the planet.

As the debate continues and local municipalities look to block fracking expansion in many areas, the energy industries have constantly countered, either mounting their own legal battles or now through influencing researchers to produce studies focusing on fracking’s benefits and safety.

WIRED reports that last week, the provost at University of Texas said it would have to “re-examine” a recent university report from one of its professors that declared fracking was safe on groundwater supplies when it was revealed that professor had taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from a single gas developer in the state.

Nationwide, Americans are being influenced by seemingly unbiased research but not being told who is influencing the authors of these studies. Case in point, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also recently published a report, according to WIRED, entitled “Shale Works for US” that was directed at Ohioans caught in the crosshairs of the fracking safety debate.

One of the authors of the study, Robert Chase, has been identified as one person who’s been greatly influenced by the energy industries and was even employed as a consultant for companies like Halliburton and Cabot, leaders in the fracking industry. His influence was likely part of a Penn State University study that also found fracking to be safe and ultimately led state lawmakers there to allow some of the most unchecked fracking drilling in the U.S.

Just as the Exxon story made international headlines, so too should this story. Credible, honest studies have already been made public that show that there is nothing safe about the process of unconventional gas development. DeSmogBlog’s “Fracking The Future” report is a great source of information on the dangers that fracking and other risky industry practices pose to the health of human beings as well as the environment.

But this is hardly the first time that the industry has been on the wrong side of science. In May of this year, I reported on how the fracking industry was trying to keep doctors in the dark about the chemicals being injected into the ground, and also attempting to get gag orders on doctors to prevent them from speaking with patients and the public about drilling-related illnesses.

The only thing currently holding back a wave of new fracking wells in America is public opinion and opposition from elected officials. But even with those hurdles in place, the industry continues to operate with almost no oversight, and drilling activities are still expanding. If scientists are willing to tell the American public and our elected leaders that fracking is safe, that could easily be enough to expand this dirty practice to areas that, at least for now, have been off limits to the industry.

Comments

The beauty of peer reviewed studies is the results are, in theory, repeatable and the conclusions are based off those results. There have many peer reviewed studies of the environmental impacts of slick water hydraulic fracturing and none of them have found contamination of fracturing fluids to be widespread or problematic. Its not surprising that you have to rely on the logical fallacy of guilt by association because you really aren’t qualified to dig into the research and instead spend your energies attacking those who carried out the studies and those who may have had a direct and more often than not and indirect financial ties to the scientists or institutions they work for.

The Peer review process is independent of the quality of the study. The quality of the study resides in the honesty of the way the researchers go about their business, and the soundness of the logic in their interpretation of the results they get. Most particularly a study must be designed with a view to lead to a re-ranking of three or more alternative competing points of view. Whereas most studies today are there to “fail to falsify” a mainstream favourite point of view. A study which “fails to falsify” and is designed to do just that, is a study that ought never have gone ahead, and is also known as a “waste of money.”

On another thread someone derisively observed that a scientist had been “relegated to publishing in Korea” (paraphrase only) or some such. This is showing that people here really don't have a clue. About the practice of science, and about the nature of reality. The Peer Review doctrine is pure Woo.

“And while most of the distrust that Americans have for scientists and science in general is completely without warrant, there are times when it is reasonable and often necessary to question the findings of scientists.”

This is just special pleading. Either you reject reason or you don't. Either you have a well-worked out epistemology and can judge studies and paradigms for soundness or you have a poor understanding of epistemology and you will read study summaries trying to pick up the sentiment of the person doing the final draft of the study…. he himself will of course be wording matters to match the sentiment of the journal editor and of his funders.

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE